Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Movie Studios Seeking Usage Right Restrictions?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
you obviously haven't taught before, have you? for "only" working 9 months...the fact is, if teaching were a year-round gig, no one would do it. and i don't know what "benefits" you're talking about. someone once figured out that if you count all the out-of-school hours that teachers spend on grading, prepping, etc., many teachers are actually paid less than minimum wage.
i've always felt that not only are good teachers worth $100grand/year, but that kind of salary would make teaching competitive so that bright, enthusiastic, and promising individuals would have a reason to pursue teaching and not be turned off by the poor wages. yes, there will be some who pursue it strictly for the money, but if the wages are high enough, there will be increased competition for jobs and the good teachers will more often than not get the jobs. bad teachers or those who don't care about the kids are easy to identify.
my 2 cents...sorry for the OT rant.
The cries of the entertainment industry fall on pretty deaf ears in my house.
Yes, I understand that Universal, Disney, et al, are businesses and survive by making money, but let's not loose sight of one very important fact:
It's entertainment. It is not necessary to the functioning of our country, culture, or lives.
Food is. But look how little farmers get paid.
Medical care is. But look how so much of the money we (or insurance companies on our behalf) pay actually goes to a facilities' or a doctor's malpractice insurance, not to them.
Education is. But look how poorly-prioritized education is in this country.
Work experience is, as a function of how it impacts one's ability to function competently and thereby either retain a job or to acquire a better one. But it's treated just as poorly as education.
Entertainment is NOT. As a consequence, I don't plan for, nor do I budget for, any kind of entertainment concern.
IF, and ONLY IF, there's a movie out that I really want to see, will I go to the theater to see it. And on average I probably go to a theater once a year.
The very notion of licensing when it comes to anything other than a business deal or proposition is disgusting to me. I am not against the principle of intellectual property, but I abhor how the concept is realized in our society.
I own probably something like 10 movies' worth of DVDs, and maybe 5 TV series' worth of DVDs. I think the last DVD I bought was The Incredibles, and that was to show my support for something I found to be superbly entertaining, and have watched multiple times.
Most of the movies that I've acquired by "other means" I've pitched after watching them because, upwards of 80% of those instances of acquisition were instances of the acquisition of crap. So regardless of whatever legal status those materials may have been presumed to possess by others, I no longer have them because, for free or for a fee, I don't want 'em.
The number of times I feel like Bartleby The Scrivener (that is, the character Bartleby) on a regular basis is increasing, and that's due to the fact that I perceive society to be further and further askew from what I personally accept or agree with.
And speaking of HDCP and other DRM, DMCA, etc...
I refuse to accept any of that. I also refuse to accept that I'm either going to have to buy some sort of an adaptor, or buy a new TV, just for the "pleasure" of (what is for me) the infrequent habit of actually watching TV. Yes, I fully realize that means that, at some point, I'll turn on the TV and all I'll get is snow because there are no longer any broadcast standards that my living room TV is compatible with. And you know what I'll do when that day comes? I'll go ahead and cancel my minimum-basic-TV (approx. $13/month) service, leaving only cable modem service. I'm absolutely serious about this.
Perhaps if more people were like me, we could affect some kind of change in the broadcast industry and in Hollywierd, but any kind of "coming together for common good over common consensus" is incredibly arduous at best, and impossible at worst.
Besides, when it comes to myself and a significant other, I can absolutely find a whole lot of other things to do than simply sit down and watch the boob tube.
Yes, I understand that Universal, Disney, et al, are businesses and survive by making money, but let's not loose sight of one very important fact:
It's entertainment. It is not necessary to the functioning of our country, culture, or lives.
Food is. But look how little farmers get paid.
Medical care is. But look how so much of the money we (or insurance companies on our behalf) pay actually goes to a facilities' or a doctor's malpractice insurance, not to them.
Education is. But look how poorly-prioritized education is in this country.
Work experience is, as a function of how it impacts one's ability to function competently and thereby either retain a job or to acquire a better one. But it's treated just as poorly as education.
Entertainment is NOT. As a consequence, I don't plan for, nor do I budget for, any kind of entertainment concern.
IF, and ONLY IF, there's a movie out that I really want to see, will I go to the theater to see it. And on average I probably go to a theater once a year.
The very notion of licensing when it comes to anything other than a business deal or proposition is disgusting to me. I am not against the principle of intellectual property, but I abhor how the concept is realized in our society.
I own probably something like 10 movies' worth of DVDs, and maybe 5 TV series' worth of DVDs. I think the last DVD I bought was The Incredibles, and that was to show my support for something I found to be superbly entertaining, and have watched multiple times.
Most of the movies that I've acquired by "other means" I've pitched after watching them because, upwards of 80% of those instances of acquisition were instances of the acquisition of crap. So regardless of whatever legal status those materials may have been presumed to possess by others, I no longer have them because, for free or for a fee, I don't want 'em.
The number of times I feel like Bartleby The Scrivener (that is, the character Bartleby) on a regular basis is increasing, and that's due to the fact that I perceive society to be further and further askew from what I personally accept or agree with.
And speaking of HDCP and other DRM, DMCA, etc...
I refuse to accept any of that. I also refuse to accept that I'm either going to have to buy some sort of an adaptor, or buy a new TV, just for the "pleasure" of (what is for me) the infrequent habit of actually watching TV. Yes, I fully realize that means that, at some point, I'll turn on the TV and all I'll get is snow because there are no longer any broadcast standards that my living room TV is compatible with. And you know what I'll do when that day comes? I'll go ahead and cancel my minimum-basic-TV (approx. $13/month) service, leaving only cable modem service. I'm absolutely serious about this.
Perhaps if more people were like me, we could affect some kind of change in the broadcast industry and in Hollywierd, but any kind of "coming together for common good over common consensus" is incredibly arduous at best, and impossible at worst.
Besides, when it comes to myself and a significant other, I can absolutely find a whole lot of other things to do than simply sit down and watch the boob tube.
You don't speak for the rest of us, and the studios aren't interested in what you have to say because they're not making any money off you.
The entertainment industry "earns" it's money. Seeing a movie is one of the cheapest "nights out" you can find. If it wasn't entertaining, people wouldn't go. You get bad movies every now and then, but the good ones more than make up for it.
As far as putting limitations on digital content, that's their right. It is _their_ content. If they make the wrong decision, they'll come around when someone smarter makes the right one.
We're in the process right now of figuring out DRM. The problem is, copying any digital media doesn't remove detract from the original. There is no incentive to be fair. DRM puts incentive, mainly convenience, in being fair.
When it matures, it will be convenient to consumers and inconvenient to pirates.
The entertainment industry "earns" it's money. Seeing a movie is one of the cheapest "nights out" you can find. If it wasn't entertaining, people wouldn't go. You get bad movies every now and then, but the good ones more than make up for it.
As far as putting limitations on digital content, that's their right. It is _their_ content. If they make the wrong decision, they'll come around when someone smarter makes the right one.
We're in the process right now of figuring out DRM. The problem is, copying any digital media doesn't remove detract from the original. There is no incentive to be fair. DRM puts incentive, mainly convenience, in being fair.
When it matures, it will be convenient to consumers and inconvenient to pirates.
Wow, pardon me for stating the obvious here. But you can't "buy" a good movie. So there's no requirement that a studio spend $100 mil per picture. You don't have to use expensive special effects to bring in audiences. There are these things called "good writing" "engaging plot" and "talented acting" that I hear also draw people to theaters as well.
I don't like the idea. The moment they start chipping away at devices, it'll set a bad precedent for future negotiations. It'll be hard to get back those rights. Apple, hold strong!!
As much as I don't like the idea of limiting the amount of devices that can play content purchased from the iTunes Store, I think that Apple might eventually have to come to a middleground with the other movie studios. Apple did have to come into some sort of agreement when the made the deal with Disney, so I think that they will do the same with the other studios.
Personally, I would not have too much of a problem if content were limited to 5 computers and 5 iPods.
I can understand what the studios are doing. Hell, I know it well because of the fact that I work in the movie industry. I can say first-hand that everything is about business and money first, artistic expression second.
I think this is just the point. Thay have made the wrong decisions. Again and again. We now have a situation where all of the DRM incentives so far actually stimulate piracy. Because circumventing the rights management results in a better consumer experience.
Here's an example.
I own hundreds of DVDs - I was a classic early adopter. I like to get movies early. I live in the UK and the movie studios like to release movies later in Europe. So I own a large collection of Region 1 DVDs. I also rent a lot of DVDs perhaps 3 or 4 per week. These are all Region 2.
But the DVD drives in Apple computers are all region-locked. Five changes and that is it. So you have to pick. Rented disks or dvd collection.
So thanks to a studio-imposed attempt to control the market. They are undermining my legitimate enjoyment of my own movie collection. I do not feel grateful to them for this. It might be their right - but it is morally wrong.
As a customer I resent their interference. I regret paying for so many disks because my experience has been soured. If you are a loyal customer, your loyalty should be rewarded and not punished.
The way to beat piracy is to identify loyal paying customers, and guarantee them a better, more convenient, more rewarding experience. Send them newsletters. Give paying customers free iPod versions. Give them behind the scenes extras. Shiny boxes, free competitions. Reward them for paying.
But instead they are so terrified of piracy, that publishers are willing to ruin the experience of paying customers in the impossible hope that it will slow down the access of non-paying customers.
Consumers punish this sort of behavior. And they have a right to do that - even if its only a moral right and not a legal right.
C.
Big whining studios
Oh, well boo-hoo that it costs $100m to make a peice of crap movie. Some of the best films of the last ten years have been smaller, independent productions with budgets less than $20m. So, how about you all stop wasting your money and focus on story and character rather than big marketing campaigns to convince people that there's anything at all redeeming about the over-hyped bull**** you release.
And on that tip, think about this big studios: If you're getting $8-$12 in sheer profit for a movie download, there's a good chance this money is coming from someone who may not have paid at all, as people who currently steal movies from the internet, already download them. There's an incentive there to get something high quality and that is cheaper than buying the retail boxed product.
Also, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but you big studios are actually cutting out one of the middle-men in partnering with apple, as Apple becomes both distributor and retailer. Right? So, less mark-ups for other people - no packaging, shipping costs, no big displays for online downloads. That's going to save you money too.
So, basically, stop whining.
Oh, well boo-hoo that it costs $100m to make a peice of crap movie. Some of the best films of the last ten years have been smaller, independent productions with budgets less than $20m. So, how about you all stop wasting your money and focus on story and character rather than big marketing campaigns to convince people that there's anything at all redeeming about the over-hyped bull**** you release.
And on that tip, think about this big studios: If you're getting $8-$12 in sheer profit for a movie download, there's a good chance this money is coming from someone who may not have paid at all, as people who currently steal movies from the internet, already download them. There's an incentive there to get something high quality and that is cheaper than buying the retail boxed product.
Also, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but you big studios are actually cutting out one of the middle-men in partnering with apple, as Apple becomes both distributor and retailer. Right? So, less mark-ups for other people - no packaging, shipping costs, no big displays for online downloads. That's going to save you money too.
So, basically, stop whining.
Sorry but Tower Records is gone, bankrupt, and off the map in their physical stores. The website is there for comestic reasons.
My point exactly - something like Napster probably had more than a little to do with this fact...
Not really, Tower Records wasn't working because they didn't move online with their catalogue quickly enough. The commercial real estate is getting way overpriced.
Else why is Virgin Megastore and HMV still around?
Clap clap. Nice...
Let's hope iTunes will dominate the nation then.
No thanks!
Dominance = too much market share = too much retail control = less choices for consumers = higher prices!
I love Apple, however it is just as bad for us if they have too much control over the market. It could potentially be a large problem, just like the major studios, and Microsoft have currently in their respective markets.
HMVs have been closed across the US, and even some Virgins have shut their doors.
I think Tower was just the first in line, not the exception to the rule...
Mediots...
Sigh,
Here I am, refusing to buy any of the iTMS movies until the DRM is more like the music Fairplay (Either give me DVD video burning or cut the price in half!) and the Mediots at Universal, etc. are wanting to restrict things MORE? LOL.
Cold day in Hell till they get any of my $$$ ...
HDCP/HDMI, Broadcast flag, tighter restrictions on iTMS movie downloads? Heh, they really don't want my $$$ that badly, do they?
jwd
Sigh,
Here I am, refusing to buy any of the iTMS movies until the DRM is more like the music Fairplay (Either give me DVD video burning or cut the price in half!) and the Mediots at Universal, etc. are wanting to restrict things MORE? LOL.
Cold day in Hell till they get any of my $$$ ...
HDCP/HDMI, Broadcast flag, tighter restrictions on iTMS movie downloads? Heh, they really don't want my $$$ that badly, do they?
jwd
Not when there are plenty of people who don't know/don't care about such restrictions. You may refuse to do business with the studios due to their draconian rights management, but all the higher end services are covered with them. The result is you're one of the lowest spending consumers on the entertainment industry's radar.
The sad fact is, you don't want to play ball and they could care less when you're in the minority.
Do you ever wonder why you cable company doesn't offer any special limited time rates on basic cable service?
But I'm *NOT* one of the lowest spending customers... I'm constantly buying DVDs from Amazon... I don't have room for the DVDs I have as it is... My cable bill makes me want to puke.. I'd hold my entertainment spending up against any on this forum..
I'm refusing to buy the latest CRAP-laden disks, possible-broadcast flag-filled broadcasts, and downloads they're trying to shove down our throats in the future... I'm saying if they want to keep my future business at anywhere near my current rates, they better make the future DRM/Crap/etc more like what we have now, or they will loose sales..
How can that NOT be on their RADAR?
Shrug
jwd
What cable services do you have?
If you have digital cable, you're buying into their DRM.
If you have a cable-company supplied DVR, you're buying into their DRM.
You just haven't seen it really get kicked over yet.
Sorry - i wasn't in any way trying to talk up Tom Cruise/Jay-Z's talents! Both are quite awfully mediocre IMO.
My point was simply an economic one: a project with Jay-Z's name attached will undoubtedly bring in millions more than one with Cut Chemist. Hence the massively different fees.